RE your comment: "now your insidious referrence to a period of our history is irrelevant, as it is colored by your intentions, and certainly not by a true knowledge of the facts"

I fear I was misunderstood, and even perhaps that what you believe to be my intentions were misunderstood, and I seek to correct your impression of the point I was attempting (apparently quite clumsily) to make.

I thought it was clear that I was creating a hypothetical -- perhaps historically imperfect, but nevertheless a hypothetical situation.

Create your own hypothetical, better versed in history than mine, if you wish-- just so long as it reflects the notion that a foreign interest, one inimical to your nation's aspirations and interests, and in fact one that has continuously waged war against your nation and others who do not believe in its tenets, has inadvertently been invited to, and has therefore gone about, setting up shop in your nation.

Among those of this group who have come to live in your nation are some who clearly are siding with an enemy that both threatens and uses violence and intimidation against your people and institutions either to reinforce its own values, which it believes to be superior to yours, or to control your nation's decisions with respect to enforcing your own values.

Suppose further that some of these people go about wearing a symbol shared by the enemy group. Some -- perhaps the vast majority -- of them wear the symbol for religious reasons having absolutely nothing to do with the enemy's aspirations. But others wear the symbol for political reasons, and some wear it for both reasons, since the enemy that supports the wearing of this symbol is now within the gates as well as without, and its goals are not the creation of a secular state, but the destruction of one, to be replaced by a religious state.

Does the host nation say, "Well, our value is freedom of expression, and that is primary"?

Or does it say, "Well, yes, one of our core values IS freedom of expression, but another core value is the preservation of our culture, our beliefs, our way of life -- all of which include the value of freedom of expression.

"We also recognize that if our culture, our beliefs, our way of life are threatened, so, too, ultimately, is one of our core values: as much freedom of expression as we can reasonably tolerate without going under.

"We feel that the wearing of the enemy's symbol --even if it can represent more than one thing, including the peaceful following of their religion without more -- enables our enemies to make inroads, enables them to live here more comfortably and more true to their own cultural requirements and habits--and so we have decided ban this symbol, despite the fact that this banning does, indeed, affect freedom of expression to some degree. Not every value is sacrosanct to the point that we risk the entire society.

In short, we wish to ban our enemy's ability to freely express themselves in this regard, because we believe that although we have offered them a home in our country, their goals actually include the total destruction of one of (and far more than one of) our core tenets: freedom of expression.

By "total" I mean total: their goal is to destroy any and all expressions with which they do not agree; it won't be part of one part of freedom of expression; it will be everything, and the punishment for disobedience will not be a fine (that the enemy without can offer to pay, as is already happening in France) but it will be painful death.

I was frankly taken aback by one of the first paragraphs, which reads: "Would someone then ask my brothers and sisters who seem to be waging a hate campaign against Islam – and Muslims – in Europe and elsewhere, would somebody please ask them if they even know what Islam is?"

Again, the argument is twisted, whether intentionally or not only you can be sure. First, there is no hate campaign against Islam; actually, the French are formally waging a campaign against religion in general, and religious symbols in public places and the divisiveness they have caused, but my suspicion is that they are also doing this because of radical fundamentalist violent Islam, and not Islam generically.

Why would you think otherwise? Wouldn't the Muslims who adhere to the tenets and goals described in this URL also be equally concerned about radical fundamentalist violent Islam and its ramifications for the liberal dcmocratic society to which many have moved and are now living -- in whatever degree of assimilation or non assimilation--
and into which many have been born?

The website you have recommended, however, is very interesting, in that essentially it calls for a transformation of European society into an Islamic society.

So I wonder which side of the debate you are actually taking!

The website reads:

"Could it be these brothers and sisters of mine – in Europe and elsewhere – fear and hate Islam, because they realize that Islam could lead to social, political and economic liberation, enlightenment and empowerment for all people everywhere?

"And that Islam means the beginning of a new world order of social justice, equality and true emancipation and liberty for all the children of Adam, not only in Europe but also in all other parts of the world?"

Are you intending to suggest, indirectly, that the burqa ban is actually intended to halt in its tracks any more movement towards "a new Islamic world order"?

"And not just to people as individuals but to entire societies and cultures?"

I think you MUST be taking that position. If so, I find it enlightening that you would not have committed yourself any further.

What do other readers think about this? Does this URL present a good reflection of Islamic goals in Europe? Some Islamic goals, many, most, none? And if it does, is the burqa ban somehow viewed by the French who support it as an indirect and tentative first step towards retaining European culture?

This is a very interesting addition to the information presented in the debate:

“Mohammed Moussaoui, the head of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, a government advisory body, has repeatedly said that while he supports steps to discourage women from wearing the full veil, a law would send the wrong message.

" ‘Rather than enacting a law barring women from expressing their malaise, we should think about what prompted them to want to cover themselves,’" Moussaoui told lawmakers at a meeting in May.”

First, it indicates that many Muslims themselves are against the wearing of the full veil.

When he says we should think about what prompted women to want to cover themselves, he leaves no room for the notion that not every woman wearing a veil has freely chosen to do so.

Moussaoui’s statement assumes that every woman who wears the veil does so under her own volition, and not the decision, or demand, of her husband, or father. This is a suspect argument when referring to a male-dominated culture that makes no bones about its male domination.

Much literature suggests that whether a woman chooses to wear a veil or not, effectively in some Islamic households she has no choice.

When this is the situation, the argument based on “freedom of expression” gets turned on its head, because then it is only the male’s freedom of expression, and not the female’s, in these instances.

Only by passing a law would the French be able to grant freedom of expression to those women who wear the veil under duress.

Here is the counter argument:

“There is a deeply disturbing discourse developing in Europe, one that equates the niqab with Islamic radicalism, and which facilitates a witch-hunt of Muslims under the cover of concern for women – or ‘racism veiled as liberation’, as the writer Madeleine Bunting put it. There are indeed several ways in which Muslim women are oppressed, not best interpreted by what they wear.
“A mix of Islamophobia, busy-bodying feminism and resurgent nationalist sentiment has contributed to this demonisation of a minority of Muslim women. The niqab and burka are indeed powerful symbols and reminders of the ongoing fissures between the West and Islam. Indeed, it is understandable that something as final and ostensibly exclusionary as a face veil would be alienating. But surely that lies more in the realm of social inappropriateness?”

I would suggest that the discourse has been twisted in this argument. It is not that the veil should be equated with Islamic radicalism, because it can be, and is, worn by fundamentalist, but non-radical Muslims. It is rather that the radical Islamists do require their women to wear it.

Banning the veil is not “a witch hunt for Muslims under the cover of concern for women”, for if a witch-hunt were truly ongoing, the opposite would be the case: all Muslims would be required to wear the veil so they could easily be identified as such. Think of the Jews being required to wear a yellow arm-band.

And since many Muslim women are required to wear the veil against their will, concern for women is not a “cover” (although the burqa is) but rather an additional reason for the ban.

I believe the primary reason is the one I presented above; to discourage the violent radical jihadist Islamists from growing comfortable in French communities.

Sometimes there is no perfect solution that pleases everyone; this is the case here, and the lower house of Parliament has opted against Islamic religious radicalism because the latter results in violent physical attacks against other French citizens and institutions and teaches and follows a philosophy that is incongruent with nearly every value held dear by the French republic.

The fact that there is no perfect solution does not mean that racism is involved in parliament’s decision. Rather, the charge of racism (and "witch-hunt" and others) is flung about willy-nilly by those who either fail to understand the true underlying concerns of parliament (and 80% of the population), or pretend not to understand these concerns and use the charge meanspiritedly to their advantage.

re: "the state has no business dictating what anyone chooses to believe or disbelieve. It has no business telling someone not to wear a cross, turban, or burqa. If there was a symbol for atheists, the state would have no business banning that either."

--Even if what they believe, and work towards, from within the host state, is the destruction of the very state that is tolerating them?

""the state has no business dictating what anyone chooses to believe or disbelieve. It has no business telling someone not to wear a cross, turban, or burqa. If there was a symbol for atheists, the state would have no business banning that either."

--Even if what they believe, and work towards, from within the host state, is the destruction of the very state that is tolerating them? "

I didn't wrote this , but rather it was "Classical Liberal"

are you too absorbed by your discourse that you couldn't discern the different messages ?

now your insidious referrence to a period of our history is irrelevant, as it is colored by your intentions, and certainly not by a true knowledge of the facts

"Suppose the year were 1939, Hitler had broken the Munich agreement and taken the rest of Czechoslovakia, and France had invited Germans to come live and work in France, some of whom were Nazis, wore the Nazi insignia, and worked actively from within France to ensure the coming German attack would be a success."

hmmm hadn't the Brit army not flew the Dunkirk fields, perhaps, things would have been turned otherwise

"A couple of months after being sent to France as part of the British Expeditionary Force, 2nd Lt Denis Hamilton was part of the beaten and outmanoeuvred army that retreated chaotically to the French coast to clamber aboard the little ships that took them to the bigger ships to take them back from whence they had come. "I came back with more men than I went out with," he later told me. "We kept picking up stragglers; some had been deserted by their officers."

If Dunkirk has gone down as a heroic defeat, it wasn't like that to those who took part. It was a shambles, in which a poorly trained and under-equipped army was totally outflanked and outfought by two superior German armies invading France through Belgium towards Antwerp in the north and, completely unexpectedly, through the Ardennes in the south. The battle started on 10 May 1940, the German tanks burst through the Ardennes on 14 May and by 26 May the British Expeditionary Force and the French First Army were cornered in a narrow corridor around Dunkirk awaiting evacuation." cf "The Independant" 21/05/2010

Also Chamberlain lead the appeasment agreement in 1938, since the Brits were eager to make business with Nazi Germany... need links ?

"A government minister has signalled that a French-style ban on women wearing burqas is unlikely to be replicated in the UK, because, he said, the idea was “unBritish” and “undesirable”. The immigration minister, Damian Green, said banning Muslim women from covering their faces in public would be at odds with the UK’s “tolerant and mutually respectful society”.

… But Green told the Sunday Telegraph: “I stand personally on the feeling that telling people what they can and can’t wear, if they’re just walking down the street, is a rather un-British thing to do. We’re a tolerant and mutually respectful society.

“There are times, clearly, when you’ve got to be able to identify yourself, and people have got to be able to see your face, but I think it’s very unlikely and it would be undesirable for the British parliament to try and pass a law dictating what people wore.”

He said he thought the numbers of women in France wearing the burqa were limited. He added: “They [the French parliament] are doing it for demonstration effects. The French political culture is very different. They are an aggressively secular state. They can ban the burqa, they ban crucifixes in schools and things like that. We have schools run explicitly by religions. I think there’s absolutely no read-across to immigration policy from what the French are doing about the burqa.”

hmmm, is it because the Brits still want to position themselves in opposition, and as the conter mirror of the french style of society ? or that they really are afraid of the consequences ?

"In contrast, the US and perhaps sections of the UK do not favor the ban on the burqa for the following factors:

Their “war on terror” that has widened the gap with local Muslims, thereby rendering rather risky any notions of the majority taking steps such as banning the burqa to “help” Muslims.
The more aspirational immigration of these countries as against the lower-skilled immigration into Europe.

if we assert our position, the radical Muslims comply. The only thing they don’t respect is “appeasement”.

Since that the anti-veil law for schools passed in 2004, radical Muslims revendications slowed down, and girls go to school without arguing.

Now, that the burqa law passed, we can expect that the radical Muslims will find another way to destabilize our society, though they aren’t supported by the majoritity of our Maghrebin communauty anymore. The new Imams (since they have to pass a degree in french language and in french laws at the University) are chasing those that want to disturb their moderate discourse now."

I think what you have written about freedom of religion is not taking into account that Islam is a religion often connected with the state, in diametrical opposition to France, which separates church from state. When there are radicals among these new immigrants, they do not espouse merely a radical religion; they espouse a radical religion/state. This means that not just a different religious point of view is being tolerated; an enemy state is also being tolerated, within the gates.

The goals and language of the radicals are worth being aware of:

"Depending on whether Islamists address Americans or fellow Muslims, the same exact words they use often relay diametrically opposed meanings. One example: when Americans hear Muslims evoke 'justice,' the former envision Western-style justice, whereas Muslims naturally have Sharia law justice in mind.

"Islamists obviously use this to their advantage: when addressing the West, Osama bin Laden bemoans the 'justice of our causes, particularly Palestine'; yet, when addressing Muslims, his notion of justice far transcends territorial disputes and becomes unintelligible from a Western perspective: 'Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them. The West perceives fighting, enmity, and hatred all for the sake of the religion [i.e., Islam] as unjust, hostile, and evil. But who's understanding is right—our notions of justice and righteousness, or theirs?'" (Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).

"Of course, that Osama bin Laden—slayer of 3,000 Americans and avowed enemy to the rest—exhibits two faces, one to Americans another to Muslims, is not surprising."

re: "the state has no business dictating what anyone chooses to believe or disbelieve. It has no business telling someone not to wear a cross, turban, or burqa. If there was a symbol for atheists, the state would have no business banning that either."

--Even if what they believe, and work towards, from within the host state, is the destruction of the very state that is tolerating them?

Suppose the year were 1939, Hitler had broken the Munich agreement and taken the rest of Czechoslovakia, and France had invited Germans to come live and work in France, some of whom were Nazis, wore the Nazi insignia, and worked actively from within France to ensure the coming German attack would be a success.

Just out of curiousity, given this hypothetical, would you still stand firm that the state has no business dictating what anyone chooses to believe or disbelieve--or what they wear? Is your position limitless--or does it have SOME boundaries?

"My point exactly; the separation of church and state means the state has no business dictating what anyone chooses to believe or disbelieve. It has no business telling someone not to wear a cross, turban, or burqa. If there was a symbol for atheists, the state would have no business banning that either."

Precisely our law of 1906 was to stop church to interfer into public affairs like it used to since centuries.

The state doesn't say what you should believe in, it just says it's a private affair. Atheists have not more rights than any other citizen believer, in regard to this law they can't make proselitym too.

"I like Kal's cartoon because Sarkozy ought to be ashamed for taking a cheap shot on a visible minority to score brownie points. Most politicians do this and should be lumped into the same boat but Sarkozy happens to be the man at the centre of this particular controversy so has the dubious honour of wearing the cloak of shame."

the cartoon was by no means ment what you wrote, but to ridicule France style of politics

" Hamid also makes the intriguing observation that 'the proliferation of the hijab is strongly correlated with increased terrorism…. Terrorism became much more frequent in such societies as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, and the U.K. after the hijab became prevalent among Muslim women living in those communities.'"

After considerable reading on this subject, it is my belief that the aspirations of self-defined moderate Muslims (which I take to mean those adherents who do not blow up their host cities or other western cities), are protected in certain ways by radical Muslims. For example, in the States, a mosque is proposed by people who are self- identified as moderate Muslims; yet the mosque is under consideration within two blocks of the site of 9/11 and when built will be used by radical Islam around the Islamic world as a highly effective recruiting tool.

The concept differs little from the concept that the towers of a mosque must be higher than the steeples of the church. It will proclaim victory of Islam over New York City, and already may be proclaiming New York’s submission, as some would argue that the city is appeasing the moderates because of concerns about what the radicals would do should they refuse to give permission for this recruiting tool to be built. Spain has already buckled under to threats by radical Islam.

It is very important that the West understand the Islamic concept of taqiyya. “According to Sharia, deception is not only permitted in certain situations but is sometimes deemed obligatory.. . . Much of this revolves around the pivotal doctrine of taqiyya, which is often euphemized as "religious dissembling," though in reality simply connotes "Muslim deception vis-à-vis infidels."

According to the authoritative Arabic text Al-Taqiyya fi Al-Islam, "Taqiyya [deception] is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream. … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era [p. 7; my own translation]." http://www.raymondibrahim.com/7347/war-and-peace-and-deceit-in-islam.

Two posts before this one I included relevant readings from the Qu'ran and an exegesis of the Koran on taqiyya. Since Islam has moved into the West, but disallows reverse religious movement, and since many Islamists have loudly and not secretly proclaimed both their intent to expand Islam into the West and in that vein have openly called for violent jihad against the West, and since many European nations are already very busy about, and are spending vast sums on, the interception of radical Islamist terrorists in their midst, and have thus far foiled many radical Islamist plots, it is incumbent upon citizens to fully understand the real world around them. . . and not just the ideological world in which they would prefer to live.

Thus, while undoubtedly many moderate Muslims really are moderate, a few may simply be pretending to be moderate, and there is no way for the infidel to know the truth. Indeed, it is quite possible that there is no way for moderate Muslims to know . Thus, it is possible, since the New York mosque will undoubtedly be used for recruitment of radical islamists when built, and it is not possible that its sponsors are ignorant of this, that among those moderates pushing for this are radicals pretending to be moderates. In other words, every community, including the moderate Muslim community, may have its fifth column. The same must therefore be true for the community of burqa wearers.

Thus the burqa issue is a very complex matter, and one’s opinion regarding France’s determination to ban the burqa seems to have a good deal to do with one’s assessment of the dangers of radical Islam and its relationship to fundamentalist practices.

“Lighten up, it is only a cartoon” does not sit well with those who take the dangers inherent in certain fundamentalist elements of Islam very seriously, as all of French society – indeed, all of Western society—will remain at risk so long as one Imam believes it is his right to demand of foreign governments and journalists -- at the veritable point of a sword -- that they must conform to Islam’s radical religious dictates.

Freedom of expression is one of the founding principles you mentioned; but this has already been compromised by distant Imams. These very imams have encouraged their radicals -- those who believe in the right to murder those who print or film ideas which they disagree--to enter Western nations as immigrants. These radicals observe fundamentalist practices like burqa-wearing and they operate from within the host nation.

I used to feel the way you do, but as radical Islam has progressed, I have come to alter my views considerably, and I would now personally be hard pressed to equate certain elements of this culture with “rebellious youth.” In this I am hardly alone, as the lower house voted overwhelmingly to ban the burqa. Small towns in Spain have begun banning the burqa as well. . .even towns in which not a single Muslim yet resides.

They did so, I believe, not to score brownie points, but rather because they have become alarmed by what is happening in the world; they have come to recognize what many Islamists, including Ahmadinejad, believe: that there is a centuries old war between Islam and the infidel, and that this war is being fought both violently and non-violently. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?pagewanted=1&...

Rebellious youth do not issue fatwas for the murder of journalists; rebellious youth do not murder film makers and threaten authors; rebellious youth do not blow up trains, planes and subways . .all in the name of their radical interpretation of their religion.

Burqa wearing is done by those with fundamentalist beliefs, and there is a direct correlation between burqas and radical Islam; that is, wherever there is an increase in radical Islam, there follows an increase in burqa wearing, which is seen as a physical, observable manifestation of fundamentalism. http://www.meforum.org/2691/france-burqa-ban.

This is not to say that perfectly lovely people with peaceful intentions do not exist among burqa wearers. I am sure they do. The trouble is that violent radical Islamists are religious fundamentalists as well, and their women are required to wear burqas. It is the violent, anti Western, radical Islamists who are ultimately responsible for otherwise tolerant Western societies desire to discourage radicalism; without them, I sincerely doubt that any such action would be taken.

The French are a secular society (as was Turkey); but secularity can give way if not strenuously and continuously protected (watch carefully as Turkey regresses). Of course France is also a country that values freedom of expression. In the States there is the concept of freedom of expression as well; nevertheless it has limits. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre.

Islam, you have agreed, is intolerant. But you argue that its intolerance must nevertheless be tolerated by the West. Does this mean single bit of it – including those aspects of its intolerance that call for the destruction of the West? Ideological purists might say so, but others -- especially France’s President and lower house-- may not be willing to take that risk, because if they lose the bet there is no going back. (See intolerance).

I think they believe that the sooner France makes life difficult for violent radical extremists who are intent on the destruction of France’s secular values, the safer they, and their beloved infidel institutions, will all be.

The primary Koranic verse sanctioning deception vis-à-vis non-Muslims states: "Let believers [Muslims] not take for friends and allies infidels [non-Muslims] instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah — unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions" (3:28; other verses referenced by the ulema in support of taqiyya include 2:173, 2:185, 4:29, 16:106, 22:78, 40:28).

Al-Tabari's (d. 923) famous tafsir (exegesis of the Koran) is a standard and authoritative reference work in the entire Muslim world. Regarding 3:28, he writes: "If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them. … Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers — except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them."http://www.raymondibrahim.com/7347/war-and-peace-and-deceit-in-islam

I agree the wearing of the burqa could be seen as being intolerant and perhaps even disrespectful of the native culture. But that's still no reason to ban it. Each society has its share of rebellious youth too and we generally don't go around banning their behaviour unless it harms someone else. Most rebels eventually grow up and recognize the benefits of joining the broader society, especially a liberal democratic one. I think the same thing will happen with the burqa.

I would agree there are certain areas where wearing a burqa would not be possible like applying for a driver's license, teaching at a public school, or entering a bank. But in each of these cases, there are alternatives and the individual would have the choice to engage in that activity or not. The same thing can be said for the native rebel wearing chains, leg irons, and what have you, boarding an air plane. In both cases, a general societal ban would be highly illiberal.

@Marie Claude

My point exactly; the separation of church and state means the state has no business dictating what anyone chooses to believe or disbelieve. It has no business telling someone not to wear a cross, turban, or burqa. If there was a symbol for atheists, the state would have no business banning that either.

I like Kal's cartoon because Sarkozy ought to be ashamed for taking a cheap shot on a visible minority to score brownie points. Most politicians do this and should be lumped into the same boat but Sarkozy happens to be the man at the centre of this particular controversy so has the dubious honour of wearing the cloak of shame.

@Marie Claude:
You are quoting Syria's ban to justify the ban in France? Syria is not same as a france. Syria is ruled by Alevis.
Only recently Power is retaken by Turks in Turkey from Alevis.
Similarly you may see there is a high proportion of Arab Christians in Arab Nationalism.
In Turkey & Syria Alevis are using camouflage of the Turkish and Arab nationalism to rule Overwhelming Muslim Masses.Once they are removed from power we can see the flood of Islamisation worries, Holocast accusitions etc. Also west will get a fresh batch of people who claim they are "Former Muslims" with horrible "Experiences" when They were in Islam. Already such people are there in West and Started all these propaganda in Turkey Nowadays.
PS:I am not against the Minority rights but Minority should not Oppress the Majority and Vice Versa.

It is sad that a good forum for discussion on France's Muslims was Highjacked by right wing Israeli MEMRI's Oxford96 in Islam bashing/Anti-Palestinian/Pro-Israeli sentiments all over here..

@Marie Claude:
Look at the difference in the attittude of UK and France regarding this ban. One more reason UK is better than France - They do what they tell.
Freedom means Freedom to wear what Individuals want to wear.
Now in france same as above except for muslims.

"French society disapproves of the burqa but is equally shameful of Sarkozy for betraying her founding principles."

hmm, I wonder why we are shameful of Sarkozy, he's just a politician, like Blair is, or Berlusconi, like many others nowadays. These are on the scene because of the medias. He isn't less representative of our country than Ségolène,they both act for filling the screens. The question is, is he a bad actor? I 'd rather say yes, cuz he is suracting and he is also mostly improvising without analysing th repercutions

Now, we are a republican country, still hooked to our Revolution principles and to the separation of the church within the state.

Please lighten up. This is a cartoon and like many cartoons is meant to be whimsical however serious the subject matter.

I suspect the reason so many readers find it amusing is because it exposes a basic hypocrisy whenever there's a knee jerk decision to ban something. Of course, France is a secular society and that stands as one of her greatest strengths. And of course, the burqa represents a regressive and primitive world view. But whatever happened to defending someone else's right to free expression?

Since you ask for an explanation, I'll give you my interpretation; French society disapproves of the burqa but is equally shameful of Sarkozy for betraying her founding principles.